Agencies used to tout their expertise in specific areas like advertising, promotions, medical education and public relations. Nowadays, agencies identify themselves as being communications experts—implying that they have expertise throughout the communications spectrum and across all channels. I see the lines increasingly blur as agencies try to expand their expertise just to grab a bigger slice of the pie. How many agencies can truly achieve broader expertise? Or is it just smoke and mirrors?

What makes a communications expert? I suggest it’s about having the right talents represent your agency and then focusing on certain areas as your core competencies. Be specific and not vague like those following the current trend. Being communications experts means you have to bring a diverse group of people to the table who can legitimately discuss everything from branding to strategy to advertising and promotions to public relations to medical to market access to public affairs and more. You can see that the list is long, and for those who call themselves communications “experts” it is necessary to understand what they can really bring to the table, or else you will do your own business a disservice.

So, the issue isn’t that this new era of communications doesn’t exist; it’s a matter of whether your agency can meet the challenge—and, ultimately, your needs. You must ask the right questions of your agency and peel back the layers to understand what they are really experts in—agencies will always say they can do everything. Look beyond the obvious and make sure your agency fulfills the role it promises.

Having gone through numerous RFP processes throughout my career at various agencies, I can confirm that not all RFPs are met with glee when received. Many agencies have a sneaking suspicion that they are part of a cattle call where a dozen or so other agencies made the ‘short-list.’ Others are resentful that they are providing their best thinking and ideas without really knowing the evaluation criteria or scope of work.

RFPs also tend to be unclear and with limited information. Having worked on the client side myself, I don’t really know the rationale for it other than to serve as a medieval torture device. Despite an agency’s best effort to glean more information from the client, many times the information is not forthcoming. This forces the agency to invest time and money into conducting costly research on their own and to blindly go about addressing the request.

And in spite of the efforts put into a pitch, which include time, resources and finances, at the end of the day, the best and smartest agency doesn’t always win. Clients may have been looking to give the incumbent a wakeup call or to keep them on their toes, or they select an agency that they feel most comfortable with – and that’s not necessarily the agency that demonstrated strategic strength or ability to challenge the norm and push the envelope.

While I appreciate that this system will weed out the weaker agencies, it is still a very archaic and more often than not, unfair process. So, in its place, I’d like to propose a different approach. One that allows both parties, client and agency, to start off on equal footing. One that allows the agency to issue a Request for Client (RFC) asking the client to also submit a proposal elaborating on why the agency should work with them, and what their anticipated scope of work would be now and over the next few years. Additionally, the RFC would address how the client expects to work with the agency; what makes the client an ideal partner; what makes their business interesting to the agency; why they are considering the agency as a potential partner.

So what’s the benefit of this approach? Well, I see both parties benefiting. First, it will initiate a relationship that is based on mutual transparency and respect. Second, it will ensure a fair process where those agencies that are selected to participate in the RFP and who ultimately choose to participate are clear that they will be evaluated on the same criteria and scope. And last, the RFC will work to ensure that the selection process will consider not only strategic smarts but will also emphasize the value of a match between the client and agency based on mutual expectations, work styles, skill sets and chemistry. Weighing all these factors will increase the likelihood for long-term partnership success and minimize the agency churn that many clients go through every couple of years or so. Further, this approach will allow both parties to pull together the right talents and resources, and ensure the appropriate amount of time and finances are invested into the effort.

I read an interesting article in AdWeek recently about the Zappos’ agency search and the many frustrations expressed by the agencies involved. It sheds more light on why this process doesn’t have to be as painful as it’s become. To read this article, click here.

Also just for kicks, click here for a hilarious take on dysfunctional client relationships posted on YouTube.

It’s all about the net impression.
In essence, the FDA asks that manufacturers not focus only on individual claims or presentations, but rather on the promotion as a whole. According to the FDA, “the ‘net impression’ of the product after viewing the promotion should not convey a deceptive net impression of the product that could be misleading, even if specific individual claims or presentations are not misleading.”

Is it me or is this a bit vague? What defines misleading? That a product demonstrates value to a potential consumer? That it could solve a problem or unmet need? Should it instead communicate to the consumer that you could take it or leave it? Why then, would we advertise?

What did you say?
The FDA implies that manufacturers try to throw too much at consumers and cite that cognitive research demonstrates that all people, regardless of expertise, are only able to think through and process a limited amount of information at a time.

Cognitive overload — okay I get it, but guys, this isn’t going away. There’s a young generation of multi-taskers (or “multi-slackers” as I like to call them) that are gearing up to conquer the world. They’re not worried about cognitive overload, they want more. They watch TV, blog, chat on the Internet and listen to their iPods all at the same time. Let’s not over-generalize or underestimate people’s abilities to filter information appropriately — the human brain is a remarkable thing.

Volume equality?
The FDA goes on to say that risk information should be presented next to benefits and not just in one place. Additionally, that the volume of risk communicated should be similar to the volume of benefits. Yikes, does that mean that in a 60-second TV commercial, the risk information should take up 30-seconds?

Don’t get me wrong. I support and applaud the need for unbiased, non-misleading information, for transparency and the inclusion of material facts that could influence the decision-making process, to ensure the protection of the consumer from fraud and deception. It is, indeed, a rough world out there.

But what are the possible consequences of over-regulation of the drug industry by the FDA? They are going so far as to art direct — how much white space, how to layout the pages. When will it end? The fact remains that the physician is still the gatekeeper. DTC promotion helps inform the public, but the healthcare professional is responsible for weighing the options and ensuring informed decisions, not the drug makers.

If you are interested in commenting on the FDA’s proposed DTC guidelines, the deadline is August 25, 2009. For more information on submitting comments, click here.